Covid vaxx may destroy the immune system - Study

[jdf5]

There seem to be more recent data indicating that vaccinated are more often infected than unvaccinated now. Perhaps to early to tell. We will see.

Doctors also see these problems according to Malone.

Note that he's claiming to be mRNA vaccine inventor.

Robert W. Malone - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In reality he played a very small role in it.

Given the amount of garbage he's spouted on Covid I'm certainly not going to take his word for it that the vaccinated are more often infected than the unvaccinated.

Unfortunately Wikipedia can not be trusted. If you try to edit that article so it´s neutral you will likely be banned.
There are huge amounts of money and power at stake now.
One of the founders spoke up. Also read the comments below the video.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, that is a load of bullshit.

Statistically, it is most like that Covid-19 was going to mutate to become more contagious, which would statistically mean it would likely get less harmful

We are seeing that unfold. That has absolutely nothing to with the vaccine, which is still protecting the vaccinated much better than those that are not vaccinated. The virus gets weaker because all it "cares" about is reproducing. So if a mutation helps it be caught easier, it doesn't matter if it was weaker or not.

And with the vaccine, even against BA.4/5, the old vaccine is impacting how badly it can harm someone. Meanwhile, in a small study, it is appearing that unvax'd Omicron BA.1 infections are NOT leading to immunity in BA.4/5.

So the OP is just more misinformation.

Are you saying the study by 50 scientists published in Cell is disinfo?

They write:
"Viral variant infection elicits variant-specific antibodies, but prior mRNA vaccination imprints serological responses toward Wuhan-Hu-1 rather than variant antigens."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867422000769

I'm saying you are peddling misinformation. Those vaccinated have done well against every variant to this point, include BA.4/5, where as natural immunity to BA.1 isn't even enough against BA.4/5.

There seem to be more recent data indicating that vaccinated are more often infected than unvaccinated now. Perhaps to early to tell. We will see.

Doctors also see these problems according to Malone.

More bullshit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There seem to be more recent data indicating that vaccinated are more often infected than unvaccinated now. Perhaps to early to tell. We will see.

Doctors also see these problems according to Malone.

Note that he's claiming to be mRNA vaccine inventor.

Robert W. Malone - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In reality he played a very small role in it.

Given the amount of garbage he's spouted on Covid I'm certainly not going to take his word for it that the vaccinated are more often infected than the unvaccinated.

Unfortunately Wikipedia can not be trusted. If you try to edit that article so it´s neutral you will likely be banned.
There are huge amounts of money and power at stake now.
One of the founders spoke up. Also read the comments below the video.

YouTube comments on controversial topics are effectively worthless, they certainly aren't credible sources of information.

And while I do agree that Wikipedia has biases you aren't going to get banned for making something neutral. I've gone against their biases and it was simply reverted. The problem is you don't know what neutral is.

 

[jdf5]

Well, that is a load of bullshit.

Statistically, it is most like that Covid-19 was going to mutate to become more contagious, which would statistically mean it would likely get less harmful

We are seeing that unfold. That has absolutely nothing to with the vaccine, which is still protecting the vaccinated much better than those that are not vaccinated. The virus gets weaker because all it "cares" about is reproducing. So if a mutation helps it be caught easier, it doesn't matter if it was weaker or not.

And with the vaccine, even against BA.4/5, the old vaccine is impacting how badly it can harm someone. Meanwhile, in a small study, it is appearing that unvax'd Omicron BA.1 infections are NOT leading to immunity in BA.4/5.

So the OP is just more misinformation.

Are you saying the study by 50 scientists published in Cell is disinfo?

They write:
"Viral variant infection elicits variant-specific antibodies, but prior mRNA vaccination imprints serological responses toward Wuhan-Hu-1 rather than variant antigens."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867422000769

So what? You're drawing improper conclusions from this.

Yes, antibodies synthesized against the latest would be more effective against that version. That does not mean they'll be more effective against the next version. That's what we are already seeing--the protection provided by infection with a given variant pretty much precludes reinfection with that variant--but doesn't provide very good protection against others.

The vaccine-induced antibodies are effective against a much wider range of variants.

The problem is you are measuring the wrong endpoint. Lowering the probability a given variant infects you is not the goal, but rather a proxy for the real goal of being alive and unharmed. It's called the survivorship fallacy--you're not counting the ones that didn't survive so the numbers look better than they really are.

Let's put this into a simpler scenario so hopefully you can see the problem:

You're standing in the street. I'm standing 100' away from you, I take out a six-shooter, load one cartridge and spin the cylinder. Now, this isn't quite Russian Roulette as I'm a fair distance away and my eyes have never exactly gotten along with iron sights anyway.

I pull the trigger, what happens? Either it goes click or it goes bang, and if it goes bang maybe I kill you (1%), maybe I wing you (4%), maybe I miss (95%.) I spin the cylinder again and pull the trigger once more. Now, if it previously went bang it obviously does nothing, whereas if it didn't go bang before maybe it does this time, with the same outcomes as before. You're looking at it and seeing the gun that has already gone bang as being safer than the one that hasn't--but to look at that gun that has gone bang you have to have survived the previous bang.

However, let's consider 3600 targets and 3600 guns. Same scenario and odds, spin the cylinder and pull the trigger. There's a 1 in 6 that it fires, this leaves 6 targets dead, 24 targets winged, and 3570 targets still standing. Spin the cylinders and pull the trigger again. 600 of the guns are empty, the remaining 3000 are pointed at 3000 of those survivors. 5 targets die, 20 targets are winged, 2975 targets are still standing plus the 570 that were facing empty guns. Thus we have 3545 still standing.

The problem is you are looking at the 3570 initial survivors and concluding that only 25 get hurt/killed rather than 30, but you're failing to count those 30, in practice firing twice means 55 hurt/killed.

If the virus ever mutates to the point that the vaccine-induced antibodies are useless we would simply be back where we started--no protection. At no point is your cumulative risk higher from having gotten the vaccine than not having gotten the vaccine.

Vanden Bossche would not agree for several reasons as i understand.

Not that i yet understand everything he writes.

From his new article.

Why are breakthrough infections with Omicron anything but a blessing and why will re-vaccination of C-19 vaccinees with an updated S(Omicron)-based C-19 vaccine make things even worse?

I am herewith reacting to the scientifically simplistic and naïve conclusions drawn in some recent scientific publications: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.04.01.486695v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.04.29.22274477v1.full.pdf

voiceforscienceandsolidarity.substack.com

"Why are breakthrough infections with Omicron anything but a blessing and why will re-vaccination of C-19 vaccinees with an updated S(Omicron)-based C-19 vaccine make things even worse?​

I am herewith reacting to the scientifically simplistic and naïve conclusions drawn in some recent scientific publications:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.04.01.486695v1.full.pdf

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.04.29.22274477v1.full.pdf

One has no choice but to react to these papers as their authors reach some dangerous but false conclusions

In conclusion, poor neutralizing capacity of anti-S Abs in vaccinees not only enhances their susceptibility to breakthrough infection with Omicron but is also suspicious of delaying viral clearance, thereby promoting prolonged viral shedding and potentially predisposing vaccinees to long-haul Covid while causing them to exert sustained immune pressure on viral virulence [1]. The likelihood of breakthrough infections in C-19 vaccinees will even further increase upon their re-vaccination with an updated S(Omicron)-based C-19 vaccine during the pandemic. This is because re-vaccination will boost the infection-enhancing anti-S Abs and thereby further increase the susceptibility of vaccinees to breakthrough infection. This will result in an even higher capacity of the ACE2 receptor to outcompete broadly neutralizing anti-S(Omicron) Abs for binding to the S-RBM.

Based on the mechanism explained above, it also follows that high titers of non-neutralizing infection-enhancing Abs in vaccinees who experienced a breakthrough infection with Omicron (whether or not facilitated by re-vaccination with an updated S[Omicron]-based C-19 vaccine) will prevent these individuals from exerting immune pressure on variable or conserved S-RBD neutralizing epitopes. This is to say that breakthrough Omicron infections in vaccinees, especially when re-vaccinated with an updated S(Omicron)-based C-19 vaccine during a pandemic, will cause highly vaccinated populations to exert substantial immune pressure on viral virulence (i.e., on S-NTD) [1] but not on viral infectiousness (i.e., on S-RBD). The higher the prevalence of elevated titers of non-neutralizing infection-enhancing Abs, the higher the population-level immune pressure on viral virulence and viral transmission in the host population. On the other hand, elevated titers of non-neutralizing infection enhancing Abs shorten the duration of individual protection after breakthrough infection and increase the risk for a vaccinated individual to develop long-haul Covid. It follows that i) highly vaccinated populations are now paving the way for breeding variants that will not only be highly infectious but also highly virulent in vaccinees [1] and ii) that protection of vaccinees subsequent to breakthrough infection will only be of short duration while their susceptibility to long-haul Covid will dramatically increase."

 

[jdf5]

New Interview with Bossche. Forward to around 64 minutes.

 

[Elixir]

*headdesk*


Yeah, just a little over an HOUR into the BS…
Surely everyone here (who already knows you’re a captive of RW propaganda) is going to want to soak themselves in the same crap.

 

[Hermit]

New Interview with Bossche. Forward to around 64 minutes.

Thanks, but no, thanks.

On March 6, 2021, a Belgian veterinarian named Geert Vanden Bossche published an open letter “to all authorities, scientists and experts around the world” asserting that, in his expert analysis, the current global COVID-19 vaccination program will “wipe out large parts of our human population.” The way to avoid this purported calamity, Vanden Bossche asserts, is for scientists to pay more attention to his own invention — a “universal vaccine” that uses the body’s innate immune system to kill SARS-CoV-2.

Continued here.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I know I always go to a veterinarian when curious about what to do with my health.

 

[Elixir]

May I suggest you take your show to GETTR, PRAVDA, or Breitbart?
Right wing morons are far more likely to want to swallow this kind of crap than most people on this site.

 

[scombrid]

*headdesk*


Yeah, just a little over an HOUR into the BS…
Surely everyone here (who already knows you’re a captive of RW propaganda) is going to want to soak themselves in the same crap.

Kind of amazing how the right has drawn the chemtrail/anti-vaxx crowd into their voting block. I noticed back in 2011/2012 that debunkers started getting labelled as "libtard disinfo shills" by the advocates of anti-vax/chemtrail/911 Truth/etc... conspiracy theories. This thread would be like a game of debunking whack-a-mole with the likes of Berenson, Malone, BigTree...Can we get some Mercola, Mike Adams, too while we are at it? I was just on a site where Del Bigtree was interviewing an "OSHA" expert on masks. Who was his expert? Kristen Mehgan, grifter chemtrailer who is well known for being a bullshitter that grossly inflates her own credentials in order to try to argue from authority. Man, the right has sunk.

 

[jdf5]

OMG!

I did not know there is right wing science.
Some sites want to sell that he´s "just a vet". That´s not true of course.

And the CEO of Pfizer is also a vet.


Instead of posting your dangerous garbage let´s discuss the what he´s saying and writing.

I´m no expert but i´m afraid he may be right.

 

[scombrid]

Skip the "just a vet" post then and look at Hermit's post #27 and since you may dismiss snopes out of hand then follow some of crumbs to primary sources. Oh, and it isn't "right wing science". It is disinformation that the right wing has decided to embrace.

 

[jdf5]

His CV.

Geert Vanden Bossche received his DVM from the University of Ghent, Belgium, and his PhD degree in Virology from the University of Hohenheim, Germany. He held adjunct faculty appointments at universities in Belgium and Germany. After his career in Academia, Geert joined several vaccine companies (GSK Biologicals, Novartis Vaccines, Solvay Biologicals) to serve various roles in vaccine R&D as well as in late vaccine development.

Geert then moved on to join the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Global Health Discovery team in Seattle (USA) as Senior Program Officer; he then worked with the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) in Geneva as Senior Ebola Program Manager. At GAVI he tracked efforts to develop an Ebola vaccine. He also represented GAVI in fora with other partners, including WHO, to review progress on the fight against Ebola and to build plans for global pandemic preparedness.

Back in 2015, Geert scrutinized and questioned the safety of the Ebola vaccine that was used in ring vaccination trials conducted by WHO in Guinea. His critical scientific analysis and report on the data published by WHO in the Lancet in 2015 was sent to all international health and regulatory authorities involved in the Ebola vaccination program. After working for GAVI, Geert joined the German Center for Infection Research in Cologne as Head of the Vaccine Development Office. He is at present primarily serving as a Biotech / Vaccine consultant while also conducting his own research on Natural Killer cell-based vaccines.

 

[jdf5]

Skip the "just a vet" post then and look at Hermit's post #27 and since you may dismiss snopes out of hand then follow some of crumbs to primary sources. Oh, and it isn't "right wing science". It is disinformation that the right wing has decided to embrace.

Will take a look at the Snopes article but i believe Snopes is disinfo based on earlier stuff i read there.

 

[Elixir]

OMG!

I did not know there is right wing science.

Don't worry - there isn't
But there's plenty of RW propaganda.

Some sites want to sell that he´s "just a vet". That´s not true of course.

So ... he's NOT even a vet??

And the CEO of Pfizer is also a vet.

The CEO of Pfizer isn't haunting the dark web with anti-science bullshit.
My vet is a vet too. That doesn't make him a trumpsucking anti-science conman.

Instead of posting your dangerous garbage let´s discuss the what he´s saying and writing.

He's say bullshit and trying to cash in on the pandemic, reeling in suckers like yourself.

I´m no expert

Bingo

but i´m afraid

Fear is their stock in trade.

he may be right.

Nope.

 

[scombrid]

t while also conducting his own research on Natural Killer cell-based vaccines.

Yeah, he is claiming that the world will be doomed by the mRNA vaccines while trying to sell his own "technology" that doesn't exist and is about as real at this time as a perpetual motion machine.

 

[jdf5]

Bossche is taking a huge risk. Look at his CV.

You prefer to trust Snopes who may be taking orders from Big Pharma and others to publish "fact checking" articles. Ok then.

 

[jdf5]

When you have one of the founders of Wikipedia saying big money is now in control of "important" articles then you can most likely not trust Snopes either.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, that is a load of bullshit.

Statistically, it is most like that Covid-19 was going to mutate to become more contagious, which would statistically mean it would likely get less harmful

We are seeing that unfold. That has absolutely nothing to with the vaccine, which is still protecting the vaccinated much better than those that are not vaccinated. The virus gets weaker because all it "cares" about is reproducing. So if a mutation helps it be caught easier, it doesn't matter if it was weaker or not.

And with the vaccine, even against BA.4/5, the old vaccine is impacting how badly it can harm someone. Meanwhile, in a small study, it is appearing that unvax'd Omicron BA.1 infections are NOT leading to immunity in BA.4/5.

So the OP is just more misinformation.

Are you saying the study by 50 scientists published in Cell is disinfo?

They write:
"Viral variant infection elicits variant-specific antibodies, but prior mRNA vaccination imprints serological responses toward Wuhan-Hu-1 rather than variant antigens."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867422000769

So what? You're drawing improper conclusions from this.

Yes, antibodies synthesized against the latest would be more effective against that version. That does not mean they'll be more effective against the next version. That's what we are already seeing--the protection provided by infection with a given variant pretty much precludes reinfection with that variant--but doesn't provide very good protection against others.

The vaccine-induced antibodies are effective against a much wider range of variants.

The problem is you are measuring the wrong endpoint. Lowering the probability a given variant infects you is not the goal, but rather a proxy for the real goal of being alive and unharmed. It's called the survivorship fallacy--you're not counting the ones that didn't survive so the numbers look better than they really are.

Let's put this into a simpler scenario so hopefully you can see the problem:

You're standing in the street. I'm standing 100' away from you, I take out a six-shooter, load one cartridge and spin the cylinder. Now, this isn't quite Russian Roulette as I'm a fair distance away and my eyes have never exactly gotten along with iron sights anyway.

I pull the trigger, what happens? Either it goes click or it goes bang, and if it goes bang maybe I kill you (1%), maybe I wing you (4%), maybe I miss (95%.) I spin the cylinder again and pull the trigger once more. Now, if it previously went bang it obviously does nothing, whereas if it didn't go bang before maybe it does this time, with the same outcomes as before. You're looking at it and seeing the gun that has already gone bang as being safer than the one that hasn't--but to look at that gun that has gone bang you have to have survived the previous bang.

However, let's consider 3600 targets and 3600 guns. Same scenario and odds, spin the cylinder and pull the trigger. There's a 1 in 6 that it fires, this leaves 6 targets dead, 24 targets winged, and 3570 targets still standing. Spin the cylinders and pull the trigger again. 600 of the guns are empty, the remaining 3000 are pointed at 3000 of those survivors. 5 targets die, 20 targets are winged, 2975 targets are still standing plus the 570 that were facing empty guns. Thus we have 3545 still standing.

The problem is you are looking at the 3570 initial survivors and concluding that only 25 get hurt/killed rather than 30, but you're failing to count those 30, in practice firing twice means 55 hurt/killed.

If the virus ever mutates to the point that the vaccine-induced antibodies are useless we would simply be back where we started--no protection. At no point is your cumulative risk higher from having gotten the vaccine than not having gotten the vaccine.

Vanden Bossche would not agree for several reasons as i understand.

Not that i yet understand everything he writes.

Anything?

From his new article.

Why are breakthrough infections with Omicron anything but a blessing and why will re-vaccination of C-19 vaccinees with an updated S(Omicron)-based C-19 vaccine make things even worse?

I am herewith reacting to the scientifically simplistic and naïve conclusions drawn in some recent scientific publications: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.04.01.486695v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.04.29.22274477v1.full.pdf

voiceforscienceandsolidarity.substack.com

"Why are breakthrough infections with Omicron anything but a blessing and why will re-vaccination of C-19 vaccinees with an updated S(Omicron)-based C-19 vaccine make things even worse?​

I am herewith reacting to the scientifically simplistic and naïve conclusions drawn in some recent scientific publications:

Yeah, so he disagrees. He is providing commentary, not science. Science would involve a hypothesis and testing of said hypothesis, not a person's "Nuh uh".

One has no choice but to react to these papers as their authors reach some dangerous but false conclusions

In conclusion, poor neutralizing capacity of anti-S Abs in vaccinees not only enhances their susceptibility to breakthrough infection with Omicron but is also suspicious of delaying viral clearance, thereby promoting prolonged viral shedding and potentially predisposing vaccinees to long-haul Covid while causing them to exert sustained immune pressure on viral virulence [1]. The likelihood of breakthrough infections in C-19 vaccinees will even further increase upon their re-vaccination with an updated S(Omicron)-based C-19 vaccine during the pandemic. This is because re-vaccination will boost the infection-enhancing anti-S Abs and thereby further increase the susceptibility of vaccinees to breakthrough infection. This will result in an even higher capacity of the ACE2 receptor to outcompete broadly neutralizing anti-S(Omicron) Abs for binding to the S-RBM.

Based on the mechanism explained above, it also follows that high titers of non-neutralizing infection-enhancing Abs in vaccinees who experienced a breakthrough infection with Omicron (whether or not facilitated by re-vaccination with an updated S[Omicron]-based C-19 vaccine) will prevent these individuals from exerting immune pressure on variable or conserved S-RBD neutralizing epitopes. This is to say that breakthrough Omicron infections in vaccinees, especially when re-vaccinated with an updated S(Omicron)-based C-19 vaccine during a pandemic, will cause highly vaccinated populations to exert substantial immune pressure on viral virulence (i.e., on S-NTD) [1] but not on viral infectiousness (i.e., on S-RBD). The higher the prevalence of elevated titers of non-neutralizing infection-enhancing Abs, the higher the population-level immune pressure on viral virulence and viral transmission in the host population. On the other hand, elevated titers of non-neutralizing infection enhancing Abs shorten the duration of individual protection after breakthrough infection and increase the risk for a vaccinated individual to develop long-haul Covid. It follows that i) highly vaccinated populations are now paving the way for breeding variants that will not only be highly infectious but also highly virulent in vaccinees [1] and ii) that protection of vaccinees subsequent to breakthrough infection will only be of short duration while their susceptibility to long-haul Covid will dramatically increase."

Why would high vaccinated populations be breeding more variants than lower vaccinated areas? Regarding the later, breakthrough is a fact of life at this point. Vaccines have only be slowing on contraction since Delta. No one is saying getting vaccinated eliminates the risk of contraction.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Bossche is taking a huge risk. Look at his CV.

You prefer to trust Snopes who may be taking orders from Big Pharma and others to publish "fact checking" articles. Ok then.

Yes, I'll disregard Snopes who fact checks claims and leaves the references up front so someone can inspect their work... because of some post on Reddit.